A META-ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE

SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND FIRM

PERFORMANCE
SUSAN L. GOLICIC
Colorado State University

CARLO D. SMITH
Central Washington University

Studies linking environmental sustainability to firm performance have

been increasing as more companies are contemplating the implementation
of sustainable practices internally and in coordination with other firms
along their supply chains. However, findings from these studies have
found positive and negative associations, leaving practitioners perplexed
as to what actions would be beneficial to pursue. With hypotheses
grounded in the natural resource–based view of the firm, the current study
examines over 20 years of research on environmental supply chain prac-
tices using a meta-analysis to determine whether the overall effect of these
specific practices on firm performance is, in fact, positive. The results
show that the link between environmental supply chain practices and
market-based, operational-based and accounting-based forms of firm per-
formance is positive and significant, providing support for the business
case that sustainable supply chain management results in increased firm
performance. Different operationalizations of supply chain practices —
upstream, design, production and downstream — along with industry,
sample region, firm size and time are examined as moderators of this rela-
tionship with nuanced results that help to extend the discipline’s under-
standing of the relationship between environmentally sustainable supply
chain management and firm performance.

Keywords: environmental sustainability; supply chain management; firm perfor-

mance; meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION been incorporated within the context of corporate

Sustainability is playing an increasingly significant
role in planning and management within organiza-
tions and across supply chains (Kleindorfer, Singhal &
Van Wassenhove, 2005; Linton, Klassen & Jayaraman,
2007; Srivastava, 2007). In its broadest conceptualiza-
tion, sustainability has been defined as meeting the
needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs (UN
Documents, 1987).1 In management research, it has
1
Throughout this paper, use of the word “sustainability” without
a dimensional descriptor preceding it (i.e., environmental, finan-
cial or social) refers to the broad definition encompassing all
three dimensions. When a specific dimension of sustainability is
meant (e.g., environmental), the dimensional descriptor is used
(e.g., environmental sustainability).
social responsibility (CSR) and commonly assessed
through a range of social, cultural, legal, political, eco-
nomic and natural environmental dimensions (Wood,
2010).
Research and practitioner interest in sustainability
emerged in part due to concern for the potential
impact that regulatory compliance and stakeholder
pressure may have on planning and management
decisions and resulting corporate financial perfor-
mance (CFP) (Vachon & Klassen, 2009; Porter & van
der Linde, 1995). Responses to such pressures have
been posited as an impediment to performance on
the one hand, while alternative propositions suggest
that the adaptation may spur innovation, enhance
operations and offer sources of competitive opportu-

78 Volume 49, Number 2

 Sustainable SCM Practices and Performance
nity (Porter & van der Linde, 1995). In an effort to
bring clarity to the CSR–CFP relationship, a plethora
of studies have been conducted over the past four dec-
ades (Wood, 2010). Mixed positive, negative and non-
significant outcomes, however, have only added to a
debate concerned with theoretical support for the sus-
tainability–performance relationship and the value of
continued study (Griffin & Mahon, 1997; Orlitzky,
Schmidt & Reynes, 2003; Wood, 2010; Wood & Jones,
1995).
Efforts to reconcile prior results have included nar-
rative reviews as well as effect-based analyses as a
means to aggregate and interpret the relationship
between CSR and CFP (Frooman, 1997; Orlitzky,
2001; Orlitzky & Benjamin, 2001; Orlitzky et al.,
2003). Meta-analysis has been used to consolidate
factors and assess a general CSR to CFP link. The
same studies have attempted to gain further insights
into the relationship by refining their analyses based
on different types of corporate social performance,
by considering how the constructs are operational-
ized and by distinguishing among research methods
and the temporal sequence of the CSR–CFP relation-
ship (Frooman, 1997; Margolis, Elfenbein & Walsh,
2009; Orlitzky et al., 2003). While the outcomes of
these meta-studies have generally found a positive
association between CSR and CFP, individual studies
were also criticized as offering few theoretical expla-
nations to support the proposed relationship (Wood
2010). Wood argued that the inconsistent results
may be attributed to stakeholder mismatching, citing
a lack of evidence in studies connecting those (stake-
holders) who establish expectations relevant to the
measure of CSR, those who experience the effects of
corporate behaviors and those who are evaluating
performance. In their review of research in CSR,
Wood and Jones (1995) note CSR “…displays a seri-
ous mismatch of variables which are mixed and cor-
related almost indiscriminately with a set of
stakeholder-related performance variables that are not
theoretically linked” (p. 231).
While the landscape of research addressing the rela-
tionship between sustainability and firm performance
has addressed multiple CSR dimensions, interest in
the environmental dimension of sustainability has
become more prominent in operations and supply
chain management research as firms understand the
impacts supply chains may have on the natural envi-
ronment as well as society (Carter & Rogers, 2008;
Srivastava, 2007; Vachon & Klassen, 2008; Wu & Pagell,
2011). A number of recent articles document a grow-
ing body of research adopting a broader systems
approach, thus connecting stakeholders, toward envi-
ronmental supply chain management.
Linton et al. (2007) reconcile a 15-year increase in
the number of business research articles involving
April 2013
sustainability along with emerging regional and glo-
bal environmental policy initiatives to suggest that
the study of sustainable supply chain management is
both timely and significant. Their description of the
interaction between environmental sustainability
and supply chain management emphasizes an exten-
sion beyond internal operations and core supply
chain practices, to include issues related to product
design, manufacturing by products, product end of
life and other factors that may relate to the natural
environment.
Srivastava (2007) recently reviewed green supply
chain management (GSCM) research which he
defined as “…research integrating environmental
thinking in supply chain management, including
product design, material sourcing and selection, man-
ufacturing processes, delivery of the final product to
the consumers as well as end of life management of
the product after its useful life” (p. 54–55). He classi-
fied studies into those concerned with the importance
of GSCM, those focused on green design and those
involving green operations. Gold, Seuring and Beske
(2010) based categories for their content analysis of
case research in sustainable supply chain management
on a model of green supply management capabilities.
Their purpose was to “…explore the role of environ-
mentally sustainable supply chain management as a
catalyst of generating valuable inter-organizational
resources and thus possible sustained inter-firm com-
petitive advantage through collaboration on environ-
mental and social issues,” (p. 230).
Kleindorfer et al. (2005) reviewed studies of envi-
ronmental sustainability in operations management
published in the first 50 issues of Production and Oper-
ations Management (POM). The framework that
informed their review illustrates an extended supply
chain adopted from Corbett and Kleindorfer (2001)
and included in an article introducing the first special
issue of POM concerned with Environmental and
Operations Management.
Coinciding with the increase in research examining
the sustainability–performance link, researchers have
conducted meta-analyses in efforts to explain any dif-
ferences among the extant studies (Margolis et al.,
2009; Orlitzky et al., 2003); however, at this point,
these analyses have primarily examined CSR in all
business practices and have interpreted the various
measures of environmental sustainability as part of a
single CSR construct. Orlitzky et al. (2003) separated
corporate environmental performance measures from
those addressing social performance. Their results
indicate a small, positive relationship between envi-
ronmental performance and CFP. However, both the
independent and dependent variables in their study
were examined in the broadest manner. For exam-
ple, any business practices involving environmental
79
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
activities were grouped as part of the independent var-
iable, and dependent performance measures blended
accounting, market-based and perceptual indicators.
The lack of focus on specific business practices,
inadequate theoretical grounding and limited exami-
nation of environmental sustainability in the extant
literature limits the contribution the results from these
studies can make, particularly to the discipline of sup-
ply chain management. The recent growth in research
involving environmental supply chain practices and
their impact on performance creates an opportunity
to evaluate this impact incorporating a stronger theo-
retical grounding and a more focused operationaliza-
tion of variables.
We draw on research published in a myriad of
scholarly journals to ask what effect environmental
supply chain practices have on firm performance and
what might contribute to positive effects in some
cases and negative/no effects in others? To accomplish
this, we adopt resource-based theories as the founda-
tion for our hypotheses and test them through an
effect-based meta-analysis (i.e., calculating the mean
effect based on individual study effect sizes) of more
than 20 years of published research findings linking
environmental supply chain practices to firm perfor-
mance. Answering our research questions addresses
gaps we have identified and is expected to make
several contributions.
The immediate study and many of the studies
included in this meta-analysis are grounded in theory
that explicates mechanisms that support a connection
between environmental supply chain practices and
specific dimensions of firm performance. It does so in
a manner Wood and Jones (1995) suggest is necessary
to “make sense of this body of research” (p. 229).
Consistent with their suggestions, factors included in
the analysis consider those who establish expectations
relevant to measures of environmental supply chain
practices, those who experience the effects of the
practice-related behaviors and those who evaluate
organizational performance.
Additionally, with its focus on environmentally sus-
tainable supply chain management, this study steps
beyond existing narrative reviews to offer a more rig-
orous empirical assessment across studies. Whereas
narrative reviews to date have helped to define the
domain and coalesce the various environmental
supply chain practices, this study is the first to quanti-
tatively synthesize research concerned with the
environmental supply chain practices and perfor-
mance link. Geyskens et al. (2006) note that such an
approach can “result in significant gains in inferential
power over narrative reviews and vote counting”
(p. 520).
The current study is therefore expected to not only
cohesively synthesize the research that has been done
80 Volume 49, Number 2
to date, but also advance theory and practice related
to environmentally sustainable supply chain manage-
ment practices. In doing so, we wish to build a better
understanding of the variables, measures, contexts or
other factors that might be influencing impacts of
environmental practices specific to the supply chain
and their performance.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
Various environmental constructs have been
employed to examine relationships between environ-
mental sustainability and firm performance. Our
focus was specifically on environmental supply chain
practices, which we define here as activities or actions
taken to reduce or eliminate the environmental
impact of supply chain management–related func-
tions or processes. Supply chain management is
defined as “the systemic, strategic coordination of the
traditional business functions and the tactics across
these business functions within a particular company
and across businesses within the supply chain, for the
purposes of improving the long term performance of
the individual companies and the supply chain as a
whole” (Mentzer et al., 2001, p. 18). Thus, environ-
mental supply chain practices can include any envi-
ronmental effort targeted toward creation,
development, production and/or delivery of a product
to the end user. Firm performance, which is generally
taken to mean the successful execution or accom-
plishment of work, has also been operationalized in
various ways. For this research, we draw upon three
categories or dimensions of firm performance that are
most frequently used in business as well as supply
chain research — market-based, operational-based
and accounting-based (Gunasekaran & Kobu, 2007;
Hult, Ketchun, Adams & Mena, 2008a; Hult et al.,
2008b; Vachon & Klassen, 2006). Market-based per-
formance centers on financial indicators reflecting
market goals with respect to meeting customer needs
and includes market share, competitive advantage,
customer loyalty, brand equity, etc. Operational-based
performance focuses on aspects related to operational
efficiency, such as costs, quality, flexibility and speed.
Accounting-based performance refers to overall profit-
ability as indicated by return ratios, earnings and
profit. These three dimensions capture the primary
criteria from popular measurement standards such as
the balanced scorecard (customers, internal processes
and financial) as well as address the primary sup-
ply chain stakeholders (shareholders — financial,
suppliers — operational, employees — operational,
competitors — market and customers — market).
Thus, our focal relationships are between environ-
mental supply chain practices and the three categories

of firm performance as depicted in the diagram in
Figure 1.
In addition to the diversity of environmental vari-
ables and performance operationalizations, a range
of models and theories — such as customer satisfac-
tion, institutional theory, product development and
resource-based theories — have been utilized in an
effort to explain hypothesized relationships with
performance. Among these efforts, the resource-based
view of the firm (RBV) was the most commonly used.
However, due to application limitations of the RBV as
pointed out recently in the supply chain literature
(Hunt & Davis, 2008; Priem & Swink, 2012), we also
draw upon the similar yet different resource–advan-
tage (R–A) theory. These theories both define
resources as tangible and intangible entities that
enable an organization to efficiently and/or effectively
produce a market offering that has value for some
customers (Hunt & Davis, 2008). Because the defini-
tion and purpose of supply chain management is to
efficiently and effectively produce a valuable market
offering, we believe these theories provide a strong
basis for the link between environmental supply chain
practices and performance.
The RBV has been used as a foundation in strategic
management to explain the achievement of competi-
tive advantage for nearly three decades (Barney, 1991;
Wernerfelt, 1984). This theory posits that the combi-
nation of different resources and how they are
managed impacts firm capabilities and can result in
competitive advantage if the resources are valuable
and inimitable, and have no equivalent substitute.
Barney argues that supply chain management has the
resource attributes that could “lead it to be a source
of at least a temporary advantage, if not a sustained
competitive advantage” (Barney, 2012, p. 3). This is
possible, he contends, because SCM is a capability
that can be used to generate more accurate expecta-
FIGURE 1
Research Framework
Environmental Supply Chain Practices
• Upstream supplier facing (e.g., supplier
partnership, purchasing policies)
• Design (e.g., eco-design, product
innovation)
• Production (e.g., pollution prevention,
lean manufacturing)
• Downstream customer facing (e.g.,
logistics process, customer cooperation)
Potential Moderators
• Firm size
• Geographic region
• Industry
• Economic conditions
Sustainable SCM Practices and Performance
tions about future value of resources. Several research-
ers have grounded their studies linking environmental
practices and performance in the RBV (Carter, 2004;
Pullman, Maloni & Dillard, 2010; Russo & Fouts,
1997). The literature also supports the RBV as the crux
for an association between environmental supply
chain practices and performance (Peng & Lin, 2008;
Sroufe, 2003; Wu, Melnyk & Calantone, 2008) with
some specifically finding a positive association with
cost advantage (Christmann, 2000; Lopez-Gamero,
Molina-Azorin & Claver-Cortes, 2010) or competitive
advantage (Chen, Lai & Wen, 2006; Chiou, Chan, Let-
tice & Chung, 2011) as the performance outcome.
In 1995, Hart argued that the RBV ignored challenges
and constraints imposed by the natural environment,
which should be important to consider in developing
new resources and capabilities in order to deal with the
acceleration of the scale and scope of human activity.
He reasoned that past economic and organizational
practices could not be continued as they would not
continue to provide the same outcomes. Thus, he
offered the natural resource–based view of the firm
(NRBV) that posits future competitive advantage being
rooted in “capabilities that facilitate environmentally
sustainable economic activity” (p. 991). The NRBV has
recently received support in research linking environ-
mental sustainability practices related to supply chain
activities to improved economic, operational and mar-
ket performance (Vachon & Klassen, 2006, 2008).
These authors note that supply chain processes have a
direct impact on the natural environment, and prac-
tices to manage and reduce this impact can develop
capabilities to improve performance.
The NRBV is built upon three interconnected strate-
gies, two of which are focused on developed markets —
pollution prevention and product stewardship.2
Pollution prevention is concerned with reducing pollu-
tion, or the inefficient use of material and human
resources, in the manufacturing process. Like total
quality management and lean production, pollution
prevention means reducing waste which results in
improved operational performance through better utili-
zation of inputs, reduced cycle times and lower costs.
Product stewardship entails integrating stakeholder
Market-based
Performance perspectives into the product. It includes activities at
every step in the value chain to focus on the entire life-
Operational-based
cycle of a product from design to disposal. Implement-
Performance ing this strategy can enable a firm to develop a stronger
reputation and competitive differentiation, both of
Accounting-based which are market-based performance. Hart additionally
Performance
argues that these two strategies that bring improve-
ments in operational and market performance
2
The third strategy, sustainable development, is concerned with
efforts in developing countries and, as this is not applicable to
this paper, will not be discussed here.
April 2013 81
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
ultimately result in enhanced cash flow and profitabil-
ity — or accounting-based performance — for the firm.
The RBV is considered to be a resource-side strategy
that looks more upstream in the supply chain and
inside the firm to build explanations of value capture
by firms (Priem & Swink, 2012). It is missing the
demand-side strategy that looks downstream toward
customers to explain decisions that increase value cre-
ation. Similar to the RBV, R–A theory also proposes
that variation in firm performance is attributed to dif-
ferences in resources; however, R–A theory is more
dynamic and assumes heterogeneous product markets
(Hunt, 2000). It addresses heterogeneous demand the-
ory, providing a link between the demand and supply
sides of the supply chain. The link between environ-
mental supply chain practices and performance has
been supported with R–A theory (Richey, Genchev &
Daugherty, 2005). Priem and Swink (2012) claim that
together these research streams present a stronger view
of SCM, because collectively they encompass both the
supply and demand side and thus both value capture
and value creation.
Because these resource theories are similar in their
support of a connection between capabilities and com-
petitive advantage and together address the upstream
and downstream aspects of the supply chain, they
serve as an appropriate lens for the link between sup-
ply chain management and performance. It is reason-
able to expect that specific supply chain practices, such
as environmentally related practices, also represent
capabilities that contribute to the variation in perfor-
mance across firms. Thus, the NRBV and R–A jointly
support the expected positive association between
environmental supply chain practices and the three
dimensions of firm performance. We offer the follow-
ing hypotheses to address our first research question:
H1: Environmental supply chain practices are
positively associated with market-based firm
performance.
H2: Environmental supply chain practices are
positively associated with operational-based
firm performance.
H3: Environmental supply chain practices are
positively associated with accounting-based
firm performance.
Meta-analysis typically looks for moderating vari-
ables that may affect the primary relationships stud-
ied.3 The most common moderator in these types of
3
Moderating relationships in meta-analysis are often drawn from
control variables in empirical studies. They are therefore not
tested like standard moderators through variable interactions,
and explanation of testing is discussed in the methodology sec-
tion which follows.
82 Volume 49, Number 2
studies is the operationalization of the independent
and/or dependent variable as this can impact the
direction and magnitude of the association between
variables. Therefore, we examine the effect of different
operationalizations of environmental supply chain
practices. Studies linking environmental sustainability
and firm performance have examined firm size and
industry as control variables given that larger firms or
firms in specific industries typically have more
resources to implement different practices (Gonzalez-
Benito & Gonzalez-Benito, 2005; Pullman et al.,
2010; Rahman, Laosirihongthong & Sohal, 2010).
Thus, we examine firm size and industry as well as
geographic region and economic conditions. This
analysis is described further in the method and results
sections.
METHODOLOGY
Based on the purpose of our study, an effect-size
meta-analysis, the quantitative synthesis of research
findings across a large number of studies (Geyskens,
Krishnam, Steenkamp & Cunha, 2009) is the best
approach to test our hypotheses. This approach not
only combines the effects of multiple independent
studies, which can achieve stronger conclusions than
those presented in a single study (Hunter & Schmidt,
1990), but meta-analysis also sheds light on empirical
generalizability of previous findings and can deter-
mine whether different moderators affect the associa-
tions found (Orlitzky & Benjamin, 2001). We have
acknowledged that other reviews of the literature exist;
however, these are primarily narrative or vote-count-
ing reviews which do not correct for individual study
artifacts and therefore often result in false conclusions
(Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). As mentioned previously,
a few meta-analyses that consider CSR and firm per-
formance exist, but these are limited in their scope,
particularly with respect to environmental supply
chain practices. The results of this analysis should
determine an overall effect between environmental
supply chain practices and firm performance and find
variables, measures, contexts or other factors that
explain differences in the effect.
Data Collection
To obtain the empirical studies, ABI/Inform Glo-
bal, which provides access to thousands of business
journals, was searched using sustainability, perfor-
mance and other related terms in any part of the
article (e.g., social responsibility, corporate responsi-
bility, environmental management, green, sustainable
practices, lean, reverse logistics, closed-loop supply
chain, occupational health, occupational safety, effi-
ciency, effectiveness). We also obtained references
from prior meta-analyses and reviews if they were
 Sustainable SCM Practices and Performance
not found in the original database search. Our
search, completed in June 2011, encompassed nearly
4,500 articles and included all published material
back to 1990 as fewer empirical studies had been
conducted prior to this time as evidenced by the
prior meta-analyses (Frooman, 1997; Orlitzky, 2001;
Orlitzky & Benjamin, 2001; Orlitzky et al., 2003).
Thus, we felt this would be a comprehensive start
to our sample.
The studies to be included in our sample were those
that hypothesized an environmental supply chain
practice/performance association and tested this
empirically. Those that were not empirical or those
that used qualitative methods (e.g., case studies,
observations, depth interviews) or simple opinion
surveys were immediately eliminated from our sample
as these did not report empirical effect sizes for the
association and were thus not appropriate. The 215
resulting studies were then examined independently
by both authors for the type of performance outcome
hypothesized. We were primarily interested in finan-
cial-related performance (e.g., increased revenue or
profit, reduced costs, increased returns, competitive
advantage) as the outcome or dependent variable, as
this is most pertinent to companies; therefore, we
removed any that hypothesized financial metrics as
the independent variable, leaving 180 studies. Finally,
we separated studies that examined environmental
sustainability practices as the independent variable
from those studying social sustainability. Those
studies that focused on environmental-related or
social-related performance as the dependent variable
and those investigating social sustainability as the
independent variable were set aside for future analysis,
leaving 89 studies.
We next extracted those studies specifically examin-
ing environmental supply chain practices per our
definition as independent variables for our analysis.
See Appendix A for a diagram of how the studies were
narrowed down. The resulting sample of 31 studies
with 77 independent effect sizes (a total sample size
of 15,160) that qualified for our analysis were each
investigated independently by both authors for perti-
nent information to ensure agreement. Figure 2 shows
the number of qualified studies by year; this demon-
strates an overall increasing trend over the years
confirming the review by Linton et al. (2007). We
recorded the constructs examined and their definition,
construct operationalization/measurement, the effect
size of the environmental sustainability–firm perfor-
mance associations and its significance level, variable
reliability and validity information, the sample size,
the context of the study, any pertinent control
variables and any issues with quality of the study
(Rosenthal, 1984). The effect size was taken to be the
correlation where provided, and if not, correlations
April 2013
FIGURE 2
Qualified Studies by Year
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1990s 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Note that the number of studies in 2011 is only
through May of that year. It is estimated that the total
number of studies that year may be twice as high as
shown.
were reproduced from the sum of the product of all
path weights from each possible tracing between the
variables (Kenny, 1979, p. 30). In the case where nei-
ther of these was available, the effect was calculated
from other test statistics such as t, F or v2 (Wolf,
1986). We categorized the firm performance–
dependent variable based on whether a specific out-
come was market-based (i.e., related to performance
with respect to customers), operational-based (i.e.,
related to production or operations efficiency) or
accounting-based (i.e., bottom-line profitability-related
results). We then categorized the independent vari-
ables based on whether the supply chain practice was
upstream supplier facing (i.e., purchasing or supplier-
related practices), downstream customer facing
(i.e., logistics or customer-related practices), design
(i.e., practices pertaining to product or process design)
or production (i.e., related to manufacturing opera-
tions practices) to examine these operationalizations
as potential moderators. The final study data used for
the meta-analysis are presented in Table 1.
Data Analysis
Because the studies we collected measure a common
effect — that between environmental sustainability
and performance — we examine a fixed-effects model
(Schulze, 2004). We first tested the main effects fol-
lowed by the existence of moderators and then mod-
erator effects following the methods recommended in
Aguinis, Sturman and Pierce (2008), Geyskens et al.
(2009) and Hunter and Schmidt (1990). Some of the
variables were measured using objective data as prox-
ies (e.g., financial data from COMPUSTAT) or used a
single-item measure; however if measured through
multiple item perceptual data (e.g., a Likert-type
scale), we eliminated the effects of measurement error
83
 Journal of Supply Chain Management

TABLE 1
Summary of Study Data

Independent Dependent Effect

Authors (Year) Journal Variable Variable size n
Carter, Kale and Transportation Research Part EUpstream Accounting 0.1438 437
Grimm (2000) supplier
facing
Christmann (2000) Academy of Management Journal Production Operational 0.1000 88
Gilley, Worrel and Journal of Management Production Market 0.1601 39
El-Jelly (2000)
Gilley et al. (2000) Journal of Management Design Market 0.1768 32
Kassinis and Production and Operations Production Accounting 0.1197 104
Soteriou (2003) Management
Kassinis and Production and Operations Production Market 0.3950 104
Soteriou (2003) Management
Sroufe (2003) Production and Operations Production Operational 0.3056 1,118
Management
Sroufe (2003) Production and Operations Design Operational 0.4733 1,118
Management
Sroufe (2003) Production and Operations Downstream Operational 0.4550 1,118
Management customer
facing
Zhu and Sarkis Journal of Operations Upstream/ Accounting 0.3460 186
(2004) Management Downstream
Zhu and Sarkis Journal of Operations Downstream Accounting 0.1380 186
(2004) Management customer
facing
Zhu and Sarkis Journal of Operations Design Accounting 0.2705 186
(2004) Management
Gonzalez-Benito and Omega Downstream Operational 0.1300 185
Gonzalez-Benito customer
(2005) facing
Gonzalez-Benito and Omega Design Operational 0.0755 185
Gonzalez-Benito
(2005)
Gonzalez-Benito and Omega Production Operational 0.0365 185
Gonzalez-Benito
(2005)
Gonzalez-Benito and Omega Downstream Market 0.0420 185
Gonzalez-Benito customer
(2005) facing
Gonzalez-Benito and Omega Design Market 0.1530 185
Gonzalez-Benito
(2005)
Gonzalez-Benito and Omega Production Market 0.0300 185
Gonzalez-Benito
(2005)
Gonzalez-Benito and Omega Downstream Accounting 0.0040 180
Gonzalez-Benito customer
(2005) facing
Gonzalez-Benito and Omega Design Accounting 0.0090 180
Gonzalez-Benito
(2005)
(continued)

84 Volume 49, Number 2

 Sustainable SCM Practices and Performance

TABLE 1 (continued)

Independent Dependent Effect

Authors (Year) Journal Variable Variable size n
Gonzalez-Benito and Omega Production Accounting 0.0010 180
Gonzalez-Benito
(2005)
Rao and Holt (2005) International Journal of Upstream Accounting 0.7642 52
Operations & Production supplier
Management facing
Rao and Holt (2005) International Journal of Downstream Operational 0.8785 52
Operations & Production customer
Management facing
Richey et al. (2005) International Journal of Physical Downstream Operational 0.2173 117
Distribution and Logistics customer
Management facing
Chen et al. (2006) Journal of Business Ethics Design Market 0.1480 203
Chen et al. (2006) Journal of Business Ethics Production Market 0.3190 203
Vachon and Klassen Journal of Cleaner Production Upstream Operational 0.2375 84
(2006) supplier
facing
Vachon and Klassen Journal of Cleaner Production Downstream Operational 0.2050 84
(2006) customer
facing
Chung and Tsai International Journal of Design Operational 0.2037 107
(2007) Management
Chung and Tsai International Journal of Production Operational 0.1710 107
(2007) Management
Chung and Tsai International Journal of Downstream Operational 0.1833 107
(2007) Management customer
facing
Zhu, Sarkis and Lai Journal of Cleaner Production Upstream Accounting 0.3895 89
(2007) supplier
facing
Zhu et al. (2007) Journal of Cleaner Production Upstream Operational 0.4060 89
supplier
facing
Zhu et al. (2007) Journal of Cleaner Production Design Accounting 0.4438 89
Zhu et al. (2007) Journal of Cleaner Production Design Operational 0.5140 89
Zhu et al. (2007) Journal of Cleaner Production Downstream Accounting 0.3382 89
customer
facing
Zhu et al. (2007) Journal of Cleaner Production Downstream Operational 0.4928 89
customer
facing
Chen (2008) Journal of Business Ethics Design Market 0.8160 136
Chen (2008) Journal of Business Ethics Production Market 0.8150 136
Jayaram et al. (2008) International Journal of Design Accounting 0.3490 57
Production Research
Jayaram et al. (2008) International Journal of Production Accounting 0.0023 57
Production Research
Peng and Lin (2008) Journal of Business Ethics Production Accounting 0.4000 101
Peng and Lin (2008) Journal of Business Ethics Design Accounting 0.5000 101
(continued)

April 2013 85
 Journal of Supply Chain Management

TABLE 1 (continued)

Independent Dependent Effect

Authors (Year) Journal Variable Variable size n
Peng and Lin (2008) Journal of Business Ethics Downstream Accounting 0.4600 101
customer
facing
Peng and Lin (2008) Journal of Business Ethics Production Market 0.3600 101
Peng and Lin (2008) Journal of Business Ethics Design Market 0.4500 101
Peng and Lin (2008) Journal of Business Ethics Downstream Market 0.4200 101
customer
facing
Skinner, Bryant and International Journal of Physical Downstream Operational 0.2856 118
Richey (2008) Distribution and Logistics customer
Management facing
Vachon and Klassen International Journal of Upstream Operational 0.3050 76
(2008) Production Economics supplier
facing
Vachon and Klassen International Journal of Downstream Operational 0.1625 76
(2008) Production Economics customer
facing
Wu et al. (2008) IEEE Transactions on Engineering Production Operational 0.1000 1,165
Management
Wu et al. (2008) IEEE Transactions on Engineering Upstream Operational 0.2600 1,165
Management supplier
facing
Fraj-Andres et al. Journal of Business Ethics Downstream Operational 0.2692 361
(2009) customer
facing
Fraj-Andres et al. Journal of Business Ethics Downstream Market 0.2533 361
(2009) customer
facing
Pullman, Maloni and Journal of Supply Chain Production Accounting 0.1517 117
Carter (2009) Management
Pullman et al. (2009) Journal of Supply Chain Downstream Accounting 0.0599 117
Management customer
facing
Pullman et al. (2009) Journal of Supply Chain Production Operational 0.3711 117
Management
Pullman et al. (2009) Journal of Supply Chain Downstream Operational 0.0770 117
Management customer
facing
Lopez-Gamero et al. Journal of Cleaner Production Design Accounting 0.7085 208
(2010)
Lopez-Gamero et al. Journal of Cleaner Production Design Market 0.7540 208
(2010)
Olorunniwo and Li Supply Chain Management: An Downstream Operational 0.6136 65
(2010) International Journal customer
facing
Pullman et al. (2010) Journal of Wine Research Production Market 0.0888 49
Pullman et al. (2010) Journal of Wine Research Downstream Market 0.0995 49
customer
facing
(continued)

86 Volume 49, Number 2

 Sustainable SCM Practices and Performance

TABLE 1 (continued)

Independent Dependent Effect

Authors (Year) Journal Variable Variable size n
Pullman et al. (2010) Journal of Wine Research Upstream Market 0.0210 49
supplier
facing
Pullman et al. (2010) Journal of Wine Research Upstream Accounting 0.0775 49
supplier
facing
Pullman et al. (2010) Journal of Wine Research Upstream Operational 0.0230 49
supplier
facing
Rahman et al. (2010) Journal of Manufacturing Production Operational 0.2750 35
Technology Management
Yang, Lin, Chan and International Journal of Production Operational 0.3360 107
Sheu (2010) Production Economics
Zeng, Meng, Yin, Journal of Cleaner Production Production Accounting 0.6071 125
Tam and Sun
(2010)
Zeng et al. (2010) Journal of Cleaner Production Production Market 0.6232 125
Chiou et al. (2011) Transportation Research, Part E Upstream Operational 0.9900 124
supplier
facing
Chiou et al. (2011) Transportation Research, Part E Design Operational 0.5900 124
Chiou et al. (2011) Transportation Research, Part E Production Operational 0.6824 124
Large and Thomson Journal of Purchasing & Supply Upstream Operational 0.2580 109
(2011) Management supplier
facing
Paulraj (2011) Journal of Supply Chain Upstream Accounting 0.3867 145
Management supplier
facing
Yang et al. (2011) International Journal of Production Accounting 0.1545 309
Production Economics
Yang et al. (2011) International Journal of Production Market 0.1660 309
Production Economics

using variable reliabilities if reported (Hunter &
Schmidt, 1990, p. 119). Whenever reliabilities were
not reported or ranges were offered, the most conser-
vative (i.e., lowest) value was used (commonly 0.70,
which is more conservative than substituting the
mean reliability as this would be >0.70). Sampling
error is only a problem if the average individual sam-
ple size is extremely small (Geyskens et al., 2009;
Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). This was not considered an
issue in the current study due to the large compiled
sample size. We calculated the mean corrected effect
size (rm) weighted by an attenuation factor that
accounted for the individual samples sizes (n) and
measurement errors (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990, p. 148–
150). The existence of moderators was examined
through credibility intervals and the Q statistic (Hunter
& Schmidt, 1990, p. 168; Sagie & Koslowsky, 1993,
p. 631). A higher Q statistic and credibility intervals
that are large or include zero indicate the potential
presence of moderators.
Our sample contained nineteen studies that shared
one or more authors with another study; thus, we
examined these for duplication following the detection
heuristic provided by Wood (2008). Eight were com-
pletely different studies, three had completely different
samples, and six examined different constructs. Two
sets of studies appeared to use similar data and con-
structs as another by the same author; therefore, com-
posite variables were created for these effects
(Geyskens et al., 2009). We also aggregated any similar
categorical effects (e.g., design ? operational-based
performance) within single studies to ensure that inde-
pendent effects were used in the analysis (Wolf, 1986).
This is the most conservative approach because viola-
tion of independence does not have a systematic effect
on the mean effect (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990, p. 453).

April 2013 87
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
In order to provide confidence that publication bias
was not a concern, we first conducted a file drawer
analysis estimating the number of unlocated studies
that would affect the overall significance of our find-
ings (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990, p. 511). In other
words, because we could not be sure we located all
articles empirically examining the influence of envi-
ronmental supply chain practices on firm perfor-
mance, we needed to test that any not found would
not affect our results. The results from this analysis
show that in most cases, large numbers of studies
(ranging from 3 to 15 times the number of studies
found) would be needed to alter the significance of
our results giving us some confidence that it is unli-
kely our search overlooked the number of studies
needed to impact our results. Due to the lack of a
standard acceptable failsafe value, some researchers
recommend the trim and fill method to examine the
potential for publication bias (Aguinis, Pierce, Bosco,
Dalton & Dalton, 2011; Geyskens et al., 2009). How-
ever, this method assumes that sampling error is the
sole source of variation and that moderators are not
present (McDaniel, Rothstein & Whetzel, 2006). We
expect moderators to be present (and our results sup-
port this); therefore, it was not appropriate to use this
method. The possibility of publication bias is
acknowledged further in the limitations section.
RESULTS
All analysis results are summarized in Table 2. We
first tested the effects of the full data set — 77 total
effects, of which 46 had a significant positive connec-
tion between environmental supply chain practices
and performance with the rest being negative or non-
significant associations. The mean effect (0.294) was
significant; overall environmental supply chain prac-
tices are associated with positive firm performance.
The mean effects for the three dependent variable cat-
egories (0.317, 0.301 and 0.256) were also significant,
supporting H1–H3, respectively. It is interesting to
note that the effects on market-based and operational-
based performance were larger than that on account-
ing-based performance (i.e., bottom-line profitability).
The credibility intervals surrounding all three included
zero, thus pointing to moderators affecting the vari-
ance. It is possible that moderators are influencing a
smaller effect on accounting-based performance, or
perhaps market-based performance and operational-
based performance are direct outcomes, while profit-
ability is a more indirect outcome. Some research
provides evidence that stronger economic results can
be obtained through the prior improvement of opera-
tional and commercial performance (Fraj-Andres,
Martinez-Salinas & Matute-Vallejo, 2009; Menon &
Menon, 1997). As described previously, Hart contends
88 Volume 49, Number 2
through the NRBV that pollution prevention results in
improved operational-based performance and product
stewardship results in improved market-based perfor-
mance, which are then expected to provide improved
firm performance (Hart, 1995).
Four different operationalizations of environmental
supply chain practices were examined — upstream
supplier facing practices, design practices, production
practices and downstream customer facing practices.
All operationalization moderators had positive signifi-
cant effects with the exception of downstream
customer facing practices on accounting-based perfor-
mance. There were only five studies available with this
link, and the failsafe number was negative meaning
even one additional study could change these results.
Design practices had the largest effect size on all three
dimensions of performance (0.429, 0.416 and 0.359);
however, the credibility interval for market-based and
accounting-based performance showed that other
moderators were at work. Upstream supplier facing
practices demonstrated the best link to accounting-
based performance with a strong positive effect
(0.272), smaller credibility interval (0.024–0.248) and
smaller Q statistic (37.19). Apparently, working with
suppliers on environmental practices has the best tie
to profitability metrics. Perhaps the other practices take
more time to achieve improved profitability or returns,
or there are other variables involved in this connec-
tion. The strongest results overall were the operational-
ization moderators on operational-based performance.
Upstream, design and downstream practices all had
significant, positive effects and smaller credibility inter-
vals. Nearly any environmental supply chain practice
impacts operational efficiency and effectiveness. Intui-
tively, it would seem that production practices would
have a large direct effect on operational-based perfor-
mance; however, production practices had the lowest
effect (0.202) of the practices and a credibility interval
( 0.096 to 0.298) that pointed to moderating vari-
ables. Perhaps individual production practices need to
be examined separately or there could be an initial
decrease in efficiency or effectiveness following imple-
mentation of environmental production practices
The studies in our sample examined a diverse range
of businesses in terms of size, industry and geography.
Thus, sample region, industry and firm size were
tested as moderators, and all were significant except
firm size when a single effect accounting for 85% of
the mean effect weighting was removed. According to
our results, any size firm should be able to achieve
similar positive results from environmental supply
chain practices. Industries represented included auto-
motive, chemical, electronic technologies, food/wine,
hospitality and others. Single industry studies
achieved a slightly higher effect from environmental
supply chain practices on performance, but the credi-
 Sustainable SCM Practices and Performance

TABLE 2
Summary of Meta-Analysis Results

Hypotheses and Total Sample Uncorrected Corrected Credibility Q Failsafe

Moderators Effects Size Mean Effect Mean Effect Interval Statistic Number
Overall ESCP ? 77 15,160 0.305 0.294 0.026 to 0.320 253.30 503.26
performance
H1: ESCP ? market- 20 2,861 0.303 0.317 0.059 to 0.376 61.66 67.51
based performance
Operationalization — 1 49
upstream practicesa
Operationalization — 4 696 0.204 0.205 0.035 to 0.241 8.10 4.02
downstream practices
Operationalization — 6 865 0.416 0.429 0.036 to 0.465 91.04 37.71
design practices
Operationalization — 9 1,251 0.302 0.340 0.032 to 0.371 68.89 35.43
production practices
H2: ESCP ? 33 8,854 0.322 0.301 0.015 to 0.317 227.78 194.66
operational-based
performance
Operationalization — 7 1,696 0.354 0.325 0.002 to 0.323 91.98 29.34
upstream practices
Operationalization — 12 2,489 0.331 0.344 0.151 to 0.193 50.68 32.43
downstream practices
Operationalization — 5 1,623 0.371 0.416 0.040 to 0.375 103.03 27.10
design practices
Operationalization — 9 3,046 0.256 0.202 0.096 to 0.298 94.60 40.39
production practices
H3: ESCP ? 24 3,445 0.283 0.256 0.019 to 0.274 89.51 72.19
accounting-based
performance
Operationalization — 6 958 0.351 0.272 0.024 to 0.248 37.19 23.34
upstream practices
Operationalization — 5 673 0.198 0.171b 0.062 to 0.233 22.40 2.99
downstream practices
Operationalization — 6 821 0.377 0.359 0.074 to 0.433 91.74 33.05
design practices
Operationalization — 7 993 0.205 0.203 0.085 to 0.288 49.49 1.02
production practices
Region — Asia 11 3,565 0.462 0.451 0.017 to 0.435 143.03 170.24
Region — Europe 5 3,105 0.192 0.195 0.481 to 0.676 303.77 0.66
Region — North 14 7,872 0.205 0.266 0.300 to 0.566 461.76 21.17
America
Industry — single 16 3,418 0.268 0.320 0.095 to 0.415 98.68 77.67
Industry — auto 5 948 0.368 0.386 0.144 to 0.242 17.14 9.92
Industry — various 15 11,742 0.337 0.286 0.180 to 0.467 479.45 154.98
Firm size 6 2,036 0.283 0.217c 0.005 to 0.212 27.63 18.50
Time — 2003–2008 16 11,012 0.300 0.276 0.017 to 0.293 159.12 154.40
Time — pre-2003 and 15 4,148 0.312 0.341 0.023 to 0.318 71.25 85.40
post-2008
a
Results not calculated due to limited data.
b
Result was not significant.
c
One study accounted for 85% of the mean effect weighting. When removed, the corrected mean effect
(0.033) was not significant.

April 2013 89
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
bility interval of both data sets included zero. Studies
using the automotive context achieved the best results
(0.386 effect and 0.144–0.242 credibility interval).
This industry has received a great deal of attention
with respect to environmental initiatives; therefore
this is not surprising. The geographic context of the
studies included companies from countries in North
America, the European Union and Southeast Asia.
One would expect the European Union to have the
highest results of these regions given their history of
regulations in this area and Asia to have the lowest
based on their reputation. Our analysis indicated the
opposite — Asian companies demonstrated a signifi-
cantly larger effect (0.451), while European companies
had the largest credibility interval ( 0.481 to 0.676)
of the study. One explanation could have been differ-
ences in individual countries in Europe, but the five
studies included were all conducted in Spain and Ger-
many. It is possible that over the time of the studies,
Europe has reached somewhat of a threshold with
respect to environmental outcomes — the regulatory
environment could in fact be counterproductive —
while Asia has improved. With the exception of one
study that relied on an international database of man-
ufacturing firms, no studies appear to have investi-
gated environmental supply chain practices involving
organizations on the South American or African conti-
nents. This suggests a level of caution when interpret-
ing the results in global terms. It also identifies an
opportunity to extend research efforts to these addi-
tional regions and cultures.
Because economic conditions is a possible explana-
tion for some of the results, and the economy has
seen drastic fluctuations across businesses, we also
examined this by using time as a moderator, grouping
pre-2003 and post-2008 together as periods where
outcomes from business initiatives might have been
more difficult to realize. Interestingly, the performance
results were stronger during the “more difficult” times
(0.341 effect and 0.023–0.318 credibility interval). We
would like to think that this result is due to the even
larger impact environmental supply chain practices
can have when times are tougher; however, it is possi-
ble that companies have simply gotten better at
implementing environmental supply chain manage-
ment practices over time or researchers better at study-
ing these variables over time.
STUDY IMPLICATIONS
Efforts to assess the impact of CSR and environmen-
tal sustainability on business performance have
garnered research attention since the 1980s. When the
focus is directed to the more specific relationship
between environmentally sustainable supply chain
practices and firm performance, a review of
90 Volume 49, Number 2
manuscripts published since 1990 reveals a relatively
young and emerging topic of study. Our search of
over two decades of published research identified only
31 empirical studies with the first appearing in 2000.
The results of our meta-analysis integrating data from
these studies confirm that environmental supply chain
practices positively influence three dimensions of firm
performance: market-based, operational-based and
accounting-based, and that there are moderators
affecting these effects. The results have implications
for theory and practice, and these are discussed next.
Theoretical Implications
Although research in sustainability occurs in different
disciplines, studies such as this meta-analysis allow for
examination of several different but related variables
to determine the patterns of similarity or differences in
construct label, definition and operationalization. The
categorization illustrates the potential for grouping like
constructs together. These types of exercises provide an
opportunity to build a foundation for more consistent
evaluation of relationships between variables. For
example, previous meta-analyses concerned with sus-
tainability have examined market-based and account-
ing-based dependent variables (Orlitzky et al., 2003;
Wu 2006). Our classification of an operational-based
dependent variable provides additional explanation of
how improving environmental supply chain practices
may influence performance, particularly because oper-
ational-based performance variables are widely used in
SCM. Indeed, reducing material and equipment waste,
improving conformance quality and achieving more
reliable lead-times are all factors familiar to those in
operations and supply chain research. We also catego-
rized the types of supply chain practices into two exter-
nally focused (upstream and downstream facing
practices) and two internally focused (design and
production) variables. While all practices fall within
supply chain management, each is aimed at accom-
plishing something more directed than the broader
goal of managing the supply chain. Categorizing vari-
ables into more detail allows for an examination of
more specific researched relationships to better explain
what is happening and what could be contributing to
differences in extant results.
Our hypotheses, grounded in the NRBV and R–A
theory, sought to explain the relationship between
environmental supply chain practices and the three
dependent variables. Our positive and significant find-
ings support the application of the NRBV, particularly
with respect to value capture from the upstream and
production variables and their increased performance
outcomes. Likewise, the improved performance
findings endorse the use of R–A theory through value
creation from design and downstream variables. While
the RBV has seen abundant attention in the supply
 Sustainable SCM Practices and Performance
chain literature, the NRBV substream has only recently
been applied to research in supply chain management
(Vachon & Klassen, 2006, 2008), and the complimen-
tary combination of the two has not been done to the
best of our knowledge. Thus, this study reinforces sup-
port for their use both individually and collectively as
a theoretical foundation for supply chain practices
such as environmental sustainability (Priem & Swink,
2012). Our results showed that environmental supply
chain practices were positively associated with firm
performance. The RBV and R–A theory note that varia-
tion in firm performance leads to competitive advan-
tage, and researchers key to the development and
application of these two theories argue that supply
chain management practices are capabilities that result
in variation in firm performance (Barney, 2012; Hunt
& Davis, 2008). Thus, environmental supply chain
practices are expected to not only enhance firm perfor-
mance, but also provide sources of competitive advan-
tage. Indeed, some of the articles used in the meta-
analyses specifically found positive relationships
between upstream supplier facing, design and produc-
tion environmental practices and competitive
advantage (Chen et al., 2006; Chiou et al., 2011;
Christmann, 2000; Lopez-Gamero et al., 2010; Yang,
Hong & Modi, 2011).
As SCM is a relatively young discipline, there are not
many meta-analyses published. They will likely
become more prevalent as studies on certain phenom-
ena grow. The current research provides an explana-
tion of the meta-analysis methods and popular
resources for specific calculations. This should help
other researchers in conducting such studies. Addition-
ally, this paper examines common meta-analyses mod-
erators that may contribute to differences in extant
research, such as operationalization, industry, firm size
and sample region. Those results point to areas that
should receive closer attention when new studies are
undertaken with respect to the performance results
from environmental supply chain practices. In order to
add to the understanding/explanation rather than the
confusion, researchers need to ensure they use consis-
tent definitions and operationalizations for constructs
as well as note any nuances in their context.
Environmental supply chain practices are capabilities
that can result in differentiated market-, operational-
and accounting-based performance. Our positive and
significant results support these relationships; the effect
is not negative or nonsignificant. Thus, our study con-
tributes to theory in SCM. Considering the growing
importance of environmental sustainability in SCM,
perhaps this presents an opportunity to include envi-
ronmental supply chain practices as part of core sup-
ply chain processes or introduce it as an additional
business process needed to manage a supply chain
(Lambert, Garcia-Dastugue & Croxton, 2005).
April 2013
Managerial Implications
For managers, the results of this study should provide
more confidence that implementing environmental
supply chain initiatives can help improve many aspects
of firm performance. That level of confidence should
strengthen because many of the results are derived
from practices organizations may already have in place.
For example, production practices such as total quality
management and ISO 9000 certification efforts have
been rapidly adopted across many industries (Saraiva
& Duarte, 2003). Those same practices, when directed
toward environmental issues, appear to result in simi-
lar positive outcomes such as reduced waste, shorter
and more consistent lead-times, improved product and
service quality and other benefits.
Our findings showed significant performance results
from upstream supplier facing practices as well as
design practices. These both occur early in managing
the supply chain. Companies should strongly consider
environmental issues when designing new products or
processes as well as when engaging suppliers. These
efforts should result in improved operational perfor-
mance as well as profitability. For those companies
operating in Asia, our results find that outcomes from
environmental practices are better than past perception
would lead one to believe. Those operating in Europe,
however, should not take their regulatory environment
for granted and assume that higher performance will
automatically accompany environmental practices.
Businesses in general are coming to realize the
importance of employing a supply chain orientation
as they develop their corporate strategies and imple-
ment operational practices. They have become more
effective at assessing the costs and benefits of integra-
tion with customer and supplier partners. The same
techniques they employ now to plan and manage
transactions with supply chain partners can likely be
used to assess similar opportunities related to environ-
mental sustainability and the potential outcomes for
firm performance. While this may seem obvious, the
fact is that many firms have been slow to adopt sus-
tainable practices due to skepticism surrounding their
outcomes, much as they were with quality practices
two decade ago. The inconsistencies in research results
to date have exasperated this situation. Our meta-anal-
ysis results provide more comprehensive evidence that
firms will obtain positive financial results from their
environmental supply chain efforts.
Limitations and Future Research
With all research, there are limitations, and although
a meta-analysis achieves results that may suggest more
accurate conclusions than those presented in a single
study, this study is still no exception. In an effort to
build confidence in our results, we conducted a file
drawer analysis that showed the number of articles
91
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
that would be needed to change any of our results.
The analysis indicated a range anywhere between one
article in the case of one of the moderators, to over
500 for the overall linkage. We did only use published
research, and we were not able to use the sometimes
recommended trim and fill method due to the expec-
tation of moderators; therefore, it is possible our
results have publication bias. The file drawer analysis
for most of our results, however, suggests that it is
unlikely that we missed enough studies in our search
to impact the significance of our results. As added
support, Pagell and Kristal (2011) find that the file
drawer issue is not very common in supply chain
management; thus, we at least do not expect to have
missed studies from this discipline.
Given the short history of research concerned with
the impact of environmental supply chain practices
on firm performance, there are a number of avenues
for researchers to contribute to the understanding of
this phenomenon in future studies. Our study identi-
fied a great deal of variety in the operationalization of
both independent and dependent variables. While
commonalities in definitions helped us to categorize
similar variables, we experienced cases where some
constructs relied on a single-item measure and no
assessment of reliability, to those that included five
observed variables and provided solid evidence of psy-
chometric validity and reliability. As this domain of
study matures, it will be important to refine current
and new measures that will be consistent in their abil-
ity to effectively identify and assess constructs and
relationships.
When meta-analyzed, the results of studies to date
support Porter and Kramer’s (2006) win–win hypoth-
esis with regard to building on environmentally sus-
tainable business practices. However, much of the
efforts by companies have been voluntary as the regu-
latory situation is a bit muddled. While the impact of
environmental regulations is not specifically addressed
in the studies examined here, future research should
consider the role that regulation plays as an anteced-
ent to environmental supply chain practices and
resulting performance outcomes. The political envi-
ronment at a national and global level clearly impacts
environmental sustainability, and its role in perfor-
mance achieved from it should be considered in
future research. For example, will performance be
stronger if governments and/or regulations drive
sustainable efforts or if they are voluntary?
Studies employed in this analysis drew from three
predominant business regions of the globe — North
America, Europe and Asia — yet supply chains and
evidence of the concerns for environmental sustain-
ability both extend throughout the world. The geo-
graphic focus of future studies may provide insights
into the role of culture in decisions surrounding sus-
92 Volume 49, Number 2
tainable business practices. The diversity in economic
development, supply chain management sophistica-
tion, culture and governmental oversight represent
interesting factors that warrant consideration in future
studies.
Sustainability is an important consideration for busi-
ness and supply chains as stakeholders are becoming
increasingly concerned about society, the natural envi-
ronment and the state of the economy. Thus, it is a
fruitful area for research. Often just “doing the right
thing” is not enough to change company behaviors; a
case must be made for economic bottom-line benefits.
This research synthesized two decades of past studies to
show that the linkage is positive and significant —
implementing environmental supply chain practices
results in increased firm performance. Research such as
this will provide support for firms to continue their
efforts to employ environmental sustainability practices
internally as well as with their supply chain partners.
REFERENCES
Aguinis, H., Pierce, C. A., Bosco, F. A., Dalton, D. R.,
& Dalton, C. M. (2011). Debunking Myths and
Urban Legends about Meta-analysis. Organiza-
tional Research Methods, 14 (2), 306–331.
Aguinis, H., Sturman, M. C., & Pierce, C. A. (2008).
Comparison of Three Meta-Analytic Procedures
for Estimating Moderating Effects of Categorical
Variables. Organizational Research Methods, 11 (1),
9–34.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained
Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17
(1), 99–120.
Barney, J. B. (2012). Purchasing, Supply Chain Man-
agement and Sustained Competitive Advantage:
The Relevance of Resource-Based Theory. Journal
of Supply Chain Management, 48 (2), 3–6.
Carter, C. R. (2004). Purchasing and Social Responsi-
bility: A Replication and Extension. Journal of Sup-
ply Chain Management, 40 (4), 4–16.
Carter, C. R., Kale, R., & Grimm, C. M. (2000). Envi-
ronmental Purchasing and Firm Performance: An
Empirical Investigation. Transportation Research
Part E, 36 (3), 219–228.
Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. R. (2008). A Framework of
Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Moving
Toward New Theory. International Journal of Physi-
cal Distribution and Logistics Management, 38 (5),
360–387.
Chen, Y. (2008). The Driver of Green Innovation and
Green Image — Green Core Competence. Journal
of Business Ethics, 81 (3), 531–543.
Chen, Y., Lai, S., & Wen, C. (2006). The Influence of
Green Innovation Performance on Corporate
Advantage in Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 67
(4), 331–339.
Chiou, T., Chan, H. K., Lettice, F., & Chung, S. H.
(2011). The Influence of Greening the Suppliers
 Sustainable SCM Practices and Performance
and Green Innovation on Environmental Perfor-
mance and Competitive Advantage in Taiwan.
Transportation Research Part E, 47 (6), 822–836.
Christmann, P. (2000). Effects of “Best Practices” of
Environmental Management on Cost Advantage:
The Role of Complementary Assets. Academy of
Management Journal, 43 (4), 663–680.
Chung, Y., & Tsai, C. (2007). The Effect of Green
Design Activities on New Product Strategies and
Performance: An Empirical Study among High-
tech Companies. International Journal of Manage-
ment, 24 (2), 276–288.
Corbett, C. J., & Kleindorfer, P. R. (2001). “Introduc-
tion to the Special Issue on Environmental Man-
agement and Operations (Part 1: Manufacturing
and Eco-Logistics). Production and Operations Man-
agement, 10 (3), 107–111.
Fraj-Andres, E., Martinez-Salinas, E., & Matute-Vallejo,
J. (2009). A Multidimensional Approach to the
Influence of Environmental Marketing and Orien-
tation on the Firm’s Organizational Performance.
Journal of Business Ethics, 88 (2), 263–286.
Frooman, J. (1997). Socially Irresponsible and Illegal
Behavior and Shareholder Wealth: A Meta-Analy-
sis of Event Studies. Business and Society, 33 (3),
221–249.
Geyskens, I., Krishnam, R., Steenkamp, J. E. M., &
Cunha, P. V. (2009). A Review and Evaluation of
Meta-Analysis Practices in Management Research.
Journal of Management, 35 (2), 393–419.
Geyskens, I., J.E.M. Steenkamp and N. Kumar. “Make,
Buy or Ally: A Transactional Cost Theory Meta-
Analysis,” Academy of Management Journal, (49:3),
2006, pp. 519–543.
Gilley, K. M., Worrel, D. L., & El-Jelly, A. (2000). Cor-
porate Environmental Initiatives and Anticipated
Firm Performance: The Differential Effects of Pro-
cess-Driven Versus Product-Driven Greening Initia-
tives. Journal of Management, 26 (6), 1199–1216.
Gold, S., Seuring, S., & Beske, P. (2010). Sustainable
Supply Chain Management and Inter-Organiza-
tional Resources: A Literature Review. Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
17 (4), 230–245.
Gonzalez-Benito, J., & Gonzalez-Benito, O. (2005).
Environmental Proactivity and Business Perfor-
mance: An Empirical Analysis. Omega, 33 (1), 1–15.
Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The Corporate
Social Performance and Corporate Financial Perfor-
mance Debate. Business and Society, 36 (1), 5–31.
Gunasekaran, A., & Kobu, B. (2007). Performance
Measures and Metrics in Logistics and Supply
Chain Management: A Review of Recent Literature
(1995–2004) for Research and Applications. Inter-
national Journal of Production Research, 45 (12),
2819–2840.
Hart, S. L. (1995). A Natural-Resource-Based View of
the Firm. Academy of Management Review, 20 (4),
986–1014.
Hult, G. T. M., Ketchun, Jr., D. J., Adams, G. L., &
Mena, J. A. (2008a). Supply Chain Orientation
April 2013
and Balanced Scorecard Performance. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 20 (4), 526–544.
Hult, G. T. M., Ketchun, Jr., D. J., Griffith, D. A., Cha-
bowski, B. R., Hamman, M. K., Dykes, B. J., … &
Cavusgil, S. T. (2008b). An Assessment of the
Measurement of Performance in International
Business Research. Journal of International Business
Studies, 39 (6), 1064–1080.
Hunt, S. D. (2000). A General Theory of Competition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hunt, S. D., & Davis, D. F. (2008). Grounding Supply
Chain Management in Resource–Advantage The-
ory. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44 (1),
10–21.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of
Meta-Analysis. Correcting Error and Bias in
Research Findings: Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Jayaram, J., S. Vickery and C. Droge. “Relationship
Building, Lean Strategy and Firm Performance: An
Exploratory Study in the Automotive Supplier
Industry,” International Journal of Production
Research, (46:20), 2008, pp. 5633–5649.
Kassinis, G. I., & Soteriou, A. C. (2003). Greening the
Service Profit Chain: The Impact of Environmen-
tal Management Practices. Production and Opera-
tions Management, 12 (3), 386–403.
Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and Causality (p. 30).
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Kleindorfer, P. R., Singhal, K., & Van Wassenhove, L.
N. (2005). Sustainable Operations Management.
Production and Operations Management, 14 (4),
482–492.
Lambert, D. M., Garcia-Dastugue, S. J., & Croxton, K.
L. (2005). An Evaluation of Process-Oriented Sup-
ply Chain Management Frameworks. Journal of
Business Logistics, 26 (1), 25–51.
Large, R. O., & Thomsen, C. G. (2011). Drivers of
Green Supply Management Performance: Evidence
from Germany. Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, 17 (3), 176–184.
Linton, J. D., Klassen, R., & Jayaraman, V. (2007).
Sustainable Supply Chains: An Introduction. Jour-
nal of Operations Management, 25 (6), 1175–1082.
Lopez-Gamero, M. D., Molina-Azorin, J. F., & Claver-
Cortes, E. (2010). The Potential of Environmental
Regulation to Change Managerial Perception,
Environmental Management, Competitiveness
and Financial Performance. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction, 18 (10), 963–974.
Margolis, J.D., Elfenbein, H.A., & Walsh, J.P. (2009).
Does it Pay to Be Good…And Does it Matter? A
Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Corpo-
rate Social and Financial Performance. Retrieved
from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1866371 (accessed
October 18, 2011).
McDaniel, M. A., Rothstein, H. R., & Whetzel, D. L.
(2006). Publication Bias: A Case Study of Four
Test Vendors. Personnel Psychology, 50, 927–953.
Menon, A., & Menon, A. (1997). Enviropreneurial
Marketing Strategy: The Emergence of Corporate
93
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
Environmentalism as Market Strategy. Journal of
Marketing, 61 (1), 51–67.
Mentzer, J. T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J. S., Min, S., Nix,
N. W., Smith, C. D., & Zacharia, Z. G. (2001).
Defining Supply Chain Management. Journal of
Business Logistics, 22 (2), 1–25.
Olorunniwo, F. O., & Li, X. (2010). Information Shar-
ing and Collaboration Practices in Reverse Logis-
tics. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 15 (6), 454–462.
Orlitzky, M. (2001). Does Firm Size Confound the
Relationship Between Corporate Social Perfor-
mance and Firm Financial Performance? Journal of
Business Ethics, 33 (2), 167–180.
Orlitzky, M., & Benjamin, J. D. (2001). Corporate
Social Performance and Firm Risk: A Meta-Ana-
lytic Review. Business and Society, 40 (4), 369–396.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Reynes, S. L. (2003). Cor-
porate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-
Analysis. Organization Studies, 24 (3), 403–441.
Pagell, M., & Kristal, M. M. (2011). Is the Supply
Chain Management File Drawer Empty? Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 47 (4), 3–10.
Paulraj, A. (2011). Understanding the Relationships
between Internal Resources Capabilities, Sustain-
able Supply Management and Organizational Sus-
tainability. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47
(1), 19–37.
Peng, Y., & Lin, S. (2008). Local Responsiveness Pres-
sure, Subsidiary Resources, Green Management
Adoption and Subsidiary’s Performance: Evidence
from Taiwanese Manufacturers. Journal of Business
Ethics, 79 (1/2), 199–212.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & Soci-
ety: The Link between Competitive Advantage and
Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business
Review, 84 (12), 78–92.
Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Green and
Competitive: Ending the Stalemate. Harvard Busi-
ness Review, 73 (5), 120–133.
Priem, R. L., & Swink, M. (2012). A Demand-Side Per-
spective on Supply Chain Management. Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 48 (2), 7–13.
Pullman, M. E., Maloni, M. J., & Carter, C. R. (2009).
Food for Thought: Social Versus Environmental
Sustainability Practices and Performance Out-
comes. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45
(4), 38–54.
Pullman, M. E., Maloni, M. J., & Dillard, J. (2010).
Sustainability Practices in Food Supply Chains:
How is Wine Different? Journal of Wine Research,
21 (1), 35–56.
Rahman, S., Laosirihongthong, T., & Sohal, A. S.
(2010). Impact of Lean Strategy on Operational
Performance: A Study of Thai Manufacturing
Companies. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 21 (7), 839–852.
Rao, P., & Holt, D. (2005). Do Green Supply Chains
Lead to Competitiveness and Economic Perfor-
mance? International Journal of Operations and Pro-
duction Research, 25 (9), 898–916.
94 Volume 49, Number 2
Richey, R. G., Genchev, S. E., & Daugherty, P. J.
(2005). The Role of Resource Commitment and
Innovation in Reverse Logistics Performance.
International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management, 35 (4), 233–257.
Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social
Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A Resource-Based
Perspective on Corporate Environmental Perfor-
mance and Profitability. Academy of Management
Journal, 40 (3), 534–559.
Sagie, A., & Koslowsky, M. (1993). Detecting Modera-
tors with Meta-Analysis: An Evaluation and Com-
parison of Techniques. Personnel Psychology, 46
(3), 629–640.
Saraiva, P. M., & Duarte, B. (2003). ISO 9000: Some
Statistical Results for a Worldwide Phenomenon.
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence,
14 (10), 1169–1178.
Schulze, R. (2004). Meta-Analysis: A Comparison of
Approaches. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber
Publishers.
Skinner, L. R., Bryant, P. T., & Richey, R. G. (2008).
Examining the Impact of Reverse Logistics Disposi-
tion Strategies. International Journal of Physical Dis-
tribution and Logistics Management, 38 (7), 518–539.
Srivastava, S. K. (2007). Green Supply-Chain Manage-
ment: A State-of-the-Art Review. International Jour-
nal of Management Reviews, 9 (1), 53–80.
Sroufe, R. (2003). Effects of Environmental Manage-
ment Systems on Environmental Management
Practices and Operations. Production and Opera-
tions Management, 12 (3), 416–431.
UN Documents. (1987). Report of the World Com-
mission on Environment and Development: One
Common Future, published as annex to General
Assembly document A/42/427. Retrieved from
http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm (acces-
sed December 8, 2010).
Vachon, S., & Klassen, R. D. (2006). Green Project
Partnership in the Supply Chain: The Case of the
Package Printing Industry. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction, 14 (6/7), 661–671.
Vachon, S., & Klassen, R. D. (2008). Environmental
Management and Manufacturing Performance:
The Role of Collaboration in the Supply Chain.
International Journal of Production Economics, 111
(2), 299–315.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-based View of the
Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5 (2), 171–180.
Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-Analysis: Quantitative Methods
for Research Synthesis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Pub-
lications.
Wood, J. A. (2008). Methodology for Dealing with
Duplicate Study Effects in a Meta-Analysis. Orga-
nizational Research Methods, 11 (1), 79–95.
Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring Corporate Social Per-
formance. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 12 (1), 50–84.
Wood, D. J., & Jones, S. E. (1995). Stakeholder Mis-
matching: A Theoretical Problem in Empirical
 Sustainable SCM Practices and Performance

Research on Corporate Social Performance. The
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3
(3), 229–267.
Wu, M. “Corporate Social Performance, Corporate
Financial Performance, and Firm Size: A Meta-
Analysis,” Journal of the American Academy of Busi-
ness, (8:1), 2006, pp. 163–171.
Wu, S. J., Melnyk, S. A., & Calantone, R. J. (2008).
Assessing the Core Resources in the Environmental
Management System from the Resource Perspective
and the Contingency Perspective. IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management, 55 (2), 304–315.
Wu, Z., & Pagell, M. (2011). Balancing Priorities:
Decision-Making in Sustainable Supply Chain
Management. Journal of Operations Management,
29 (6), 577–590.
Yang, M. G., Hong, P., & Modi, S. B. (2011). Impact
of Lean Manufacturing and Environmental Man-
agement on Business Performance: An Empirical
Study of Manufacturing Firms. International Jour-
nal of Production Economics, 129 (2), 251–261.
Yang, C., Lin, S., Chan, Y., & Sheu, C. (2010). Medi-
ated Effect of Environmental Management on
Manufacturing Competitiveness: An Empirical
Study. International Journal of Production Economics,
123 (1), 210–220.
Zeng, S. X., Meng, X. H., Yin, H. T., Tam, C. M., &
Sun, L. (2010). Impact of Cleaner Production on
Business Performance. Journal of Cleaner Produc-
tion, 18 (10), 975–983.
Zhu, Q., & Sarkis, J. (2004). Relationships between
Operational Practices and Performance among
Early Adopters of Green Supply Chain Management
Practices in Chinese Manufacturing Enterprises.
Journal of Operations Management, 22 (3), 265–289.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K. (2007). Green Supply Chain
Management: Pressures, Practices and Performance
within the Chinese Automobile Industry. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 15 (11/12), 1041–1052.
Susan L. Golicic (Ph.D., University of Tennessee) is
the Herbert Family Research Fellow and an associate
professor of supply chain management in the College
of Business at Colorado State University in Fort Col-
lins, Colorado. Her primary research interests include
the management of business relationships, strategy
and sustainability in the supply chain. Dr. Golicic’s
current projects focus on the creation and develop-
ment of supply chain strategy by entrepreneurs launch-
ing innovative enterprises, and on innovation and
sustainability in the global wine supply chain from
grower to consumer. In addition to the Journal of Sup-
ply Chain Management, other journals in which articles
by Dr. Golicic have appeared include the Journal of
Operations Management, the Journal of Business Logistics,
Sloan Management Review, the Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, and The Wall Street Journal.
Carlo D. Smith (Ph.D., University of Tennessee) is
an assistant professor of supply chain management,
and Director of the Supply Chain Management Insti-
tute, at Central Washington University in Des Moines,
Washington. He has spent more than a decade work-
ing in the private sector, including positions as a man-
agement consultant and executive educator with E3
Associates; Director of Inventory Management for
West Marine Products; and a Principal with CSC Fed-
eral Systems. Dr. Smith has published articles in a
variety of outlets that include the Journal of Business
Logistics, the International Journal of Forecasting, Business
Horizons, the Journal of Business Forecasting and the
Journal of Transportation Management.

APPENDIX A
OVERVIEW OF STUDIES INCLUDED IN META-ANALYSIS

Database Term Search

(4479)
Terms included:
Empirical Qualification DV Qualification
sustainability, sustainable
(215) (159) Environmental Supply Chain
practices, environmental
Elimination of non- Elimination of Practice Qualification (31)
practices, green, lean,
emirical articles, studies articles that did not Elimination of articles that did
social responsibility,
using qualitative methods, have firm financial not study an environmental
corporate responsibility,
and non-rigorous performance as the supply chain practice as the
environmental
quantitative studies (e.g, dependent or independent variable
management, safety,
informational surveys) outcome variable
health, closed loop,
reverse logistics,
performance)

Note: A complete list and overview of the studies included in the meta-analysis was provided during the review pro-
cess, and is available from the first author upon request.

April 2013 95